Antonella Belfatto1, Derek A White2, Ralph P Mason2, Zhang Zhang3, Strahinja Stojadinovic3, Guido Baroni1, Pietro Cerveri1. 1. Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano University, Milan 20133, Italy. 2. Department of Radiology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75390. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75390.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiation therapy is one of the most common treatments in the fight against prostate cancer, since it is used to control the tumor (early stages), to slow its progression, and even to control pain (metastasis). Although many factors (e.g., tumor oxygenation) are known to influence treatment efficacy, radiotherapy doses and fractionation schedules are often prescribed according to the principle "one-fits-all," with little personalization. Therefore, the authors aim at predicting the outcome of radiation therapy a priori starting from morphologic and functional information to move a step forward in the treatment customization. METHODS: The authors propose a two-step protocol to predict the effects of radiation therapy on individual basis. First, one macroscopic mathematical model of tumor evolution was trained on tumor volume progression, measured by caliper, of eighteen Dunning R3327-AT1 bearing rats. Nine rats inhaled 100% O2 during irradiation (oxy), while the others were allowed to breathe air. Second, a supervised learning of the weight and biases of two feedforward neural networks was performed to predict the radio-sensitivity (target) from the initial volume and oxygenation-related information (inputs) for each rat group (air and oxygen breathing). To this purpose, four MRI-based indices related to blood and tissue oxygenation were computed, namely, the variation of signal intensity ΔSI in interleaved blood oxygen level dependent and tissue oxygen level dependent (IBT) sequences as well as changes in longitudinal ΔR1 and transverse ΔR2(*) relaxation rates. RESULTS: An inverse correlation of the radio-sensitivity parameter, assessed by the model, was found with respect the ΔR2(*) (-0.65) for the oxy group. A further subdivision according to positive and negative values of ΔR2(*) showed a larger average radio-sensitivity for the oxy rats with ΔR2(*)<0 and a significant difference in the two distributions (p < 0.05). Finally, a leave-one-out procedure yielded a radio-sensitivity error lower than 20% in both neural networks. CONCLUSIONS: While preliminary, these specific results suggest that subjects affected by the same pathology can benefit differently from the same irradiation modalities and support the usefulness of IBT in discriminating between different responses.
PURPOSE:Radiation therapy is one of the most common treatments in the fight against prostate cancer, since it is used to control the tumor (early stages), to slow its progression, and even to control pain (metastasis). Although many factors (e.g., tumor oxygenation) are known to influence treatment efficacy, radiotherapy doses and fractionation schedules are often prescribed according to the principle "one-fits-all," with little personalization. Therefore, the authors aim at predicting the outcome of radiation therapy a priori starting from morphologic and functional information to move a step forward in the treatment customization. METHODS: The authors propose a two-step protocol to predict the effects of radiation therapy on individual basis. First, one macroscopic mathematical model of tumor evolution was trained on tumor volume progression, measured by caliper, of eighteen Dunning R3327-AT1 bearing rats. Nine rats inhaled 100% O2 during irradiation (oxy), while the others were allowed to breathe air. Second, a supervised learning of the weight and biases of two feedforward neural networks was performed to predict the radio-sensitivity (target) from the initial volume and oxygenation-related information (inputs) for each rat group (air and oxygen breathing). To this purpose, four MRI-based indices related to blood and tissue oxygenation were computed, namely, the variation of signal intensity ΔSI in interleaved blood oxygen level dependent and tissue oxygen level dependent (IBT) sequences as well as changes in longitudinal ΔR1 and transverse ΔR2(*) relaxation rates. RESULTS: An inverse correlation of the radio-sensitivity parameter, assessed by the model, was found with respect the ΔR2(*) (-0.65) for the oxy group. A further subdivision according to positive and negative values of ΔR2(*) showed a larger average radio-sensitivity for the oxy rats with ΔR2(*)<0 and a significant difference in the two distributions (p < 0.05). Finally, a leave-one-out procedure yielded a radio-sensitivity error lower than 20% in both neural networks. CONCLUSIONS: While preliminary, these specific results suggest that subjects affected by the same pathology can benefit differently from the same irradiation modalities and support the usefulness of IBT in discriminating between different responses.
It is widely acknowledged that the success or failure of prostate cancer radiotherapy depends
largely on lesion staging at the time of diagnosis. In spite of a high tumor
control
probability, especially in early stages, there are degrees of variability in the
tumor
response (radio-sensitivity) depending on different intrinsic (cell line related) and
extrinsic (microenvironment related) factors, which are still under investigation. Among
extrinsic factors, tumor oxygenation plays a significant role influencing the
radio-sensitivity. For
example, hypoxic tumors may require higher radiation
doses or
different fraction schedules to overcome radioresistance. Recent preclinical studies have suggested that the
tumor
radio-sensitivity, for vascularized and well perfused tumors, can be increased by
administering hyperoxic gas, inhaled during irradiation. While there is still debate whether
tumor
oxygenation is a reliable prognostic factor, the assessment of tumor hypoxia allows the
treatment
tailoring, exploiting the subject-specific radio-sensitivity prediction, which is likely
to improve the tumor response.Oxygen-related data can be gathered by means of various techniques such as a
polarographic electrodes (albeit invasive) or positron emission tomography (PET) (requiring the
administration of radioactive contrast agents). By contrast, blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) and/or
tissue oxygen level dependent (TOLD) images, based on functional magnetic resonance
techniques, allow a semiquantitative and noninvasive assessment of the average
tumor
oxygenation. In
principle, BOLD and TOLD information increases staging reliability and can be exploited
to improve the predictive ability of advanced prognostic mathematical tools as well.In order to predict tumor response to radiation treatment on a patient-specific basis, a large
number of in silico
models
have been proposed. Despite
the development of hierarchic architectures including the description of phenomena
across multiple time and space scales, the lack of their standardized testing and
quantitative validation prevents the model translation into clinical practice. Macroscopic approximations,
based on the tumor volume regression measured using computed tomography and
magnetic resonance
imaging, succeeded conversely in predicting tumor response to
therapy. In the past
decade, the role of oxygenation in tumor growth and responsiveness has been tackled using
mathematical models at both macroscopic and microscopic scales.In Ref. 26, we proposed a macroscopic
model
including interdependent dynamics of tumor evolution and oxygenation based on the following
assumptions: (1) the larger the tumor volume, the greater the hypoxic fraction; (2) tumor radio-sensitivity is
proportional to oxygenation. At the time, oxygenation could not be assessed and the
model
validation was based on volume measurements only. In this paper, we refined such a
model
to represent tumor growth and response to hypofractionated radiotherapy. Our
first objective was to verify whether the tumor radio-sensitivity, estimated by such a macroscopic
model,
correlates with oxygenation indices obtained by interleaved BOLD and TOLD (IBT) MR
images (a posteriori). The second objective was to verify whether the
radio-sensitivity can be assessed at the staging time (a priori),
exploiting tumor
volume and oxygenation data. These objectives were verified by means of experimental
procedures performed on eighteen rats implanted with Dunning R3327-AT1 prostate
cancer and
irradiated using a hypofractionation regimen (subcurative dose).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Treatment
protocol and data acquisition
This study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (protocol 2009-0180). Eighteen male
Copenhagen rats were implanted subcutaneously in the thigh with Dunning R3327-AT1prostate tumor fragments of about 1 mm3 from a donor. The
tumor size
evolution was assessed weekly, by means of a digital caliper, measuring three
orthogonal diameters (a, b, c).
The corresponding volume (V) was computed by the spheroid formula
.When the tumor volume reached about 1–2 cm3 (mean: 1.2
cm3), the eighteen rats were divided into two groups: the air group
(n = 9) breathed air during irradiation, while the oxy group
(n = 9) breathed 100% O2 for about 15 min, before and
during each radiotherapy session.The day before irradiation, oxygen enhanced MRI was acquired. Rats
were anesthetized with 3% isoflurane for induction and maintained with 1.5%
isoflurane at 1 l/min. Rats were placed on a plastic bed with a water warming blanket
to maintain body temperature. A 35 mm home-built solenoid volume RF coil was used to
image the tumors on the thigh of the rats. MR images were obtained using a
small animal horizontal bore 4.7 T MR scanner (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA).
Following tumor localization and anatomical imaging
(T2-weighted), images for
R1 were acquired using a sequential variable
repetition time (TR) 2-D multislice spin echo sequence (SEMS). Three slices in the
center of the tumor featured a thickness of 2 mm, a field of view (FOV) of 60 ×
60 mm, an image matrix of 128 × 128 pixels, a TE/TR of 20/100, 200, 300, 500, 700,
900, 1500, 2500, 3500 ms, number of averages of 1, and an acquisition time of 22 min
16 s. IBT images were acquired in two slices using a 2D multislice multiecho spoiled
gradient-echo sequence (MGEMS) for BOLD and (thickness = 2 mm, FOV = 60 × 60 mm,
, TE/TR = 6–69/150 ms, echo spacing = 7 ms, flip angle
= 20°, number of averages = 3, scan time = 57.6 s) and a 2-D multislice spoiled
gradient-echo sequence (GEMS) for TOLD (thickness = 2 mm, FOV = 60 × 60 mm,
, TE/TR = 5/30 ms, flip angle = 45°, number of
averages =2, scan time =7.8 s). Interleaved BOLD
(T2*-weighted images) and TOLD
(T1-weighted images) were acquired during baseline air
and oxygen for up to 10 min.Four indices of oxygenation were assessed: ΔSIBOLD, ΔSITOLD,
ΔR1, and . Percent changes in signal intensity
in BOLD or TOLD response to hyperoxic respiratory
challenge were calculated voxel-by-voxel, as and averaged over the region of interest. Analysis of
BOLD images was based on a single echo time (TE = 20 ms). Local changes in
tumor
longitudinal relaxation rate (ΔR1, s−1) were
calculated voxel-by-voxel as ΔR1 =
R1,oxy − R1,air and then
averaged out. A similar process provided variation of the apparent transverse
relaxation rate (, ms−1). Representative
maps and corresponding histology are shown in Fig.
1.
FIG. 1.
Quantitative maps of a small (1.6 cm3) Dunning prostate
R3327-AT1 tumor. Upper panel: (Left) Baseline breathing air (mean ± SEM
), (middle) breathing oxygen (mean ± SEM
), and (right) (mean ± SEM = − 3.1 ± 1.4 s−1). The
after breathing oxygen had a slower decay compared to
air indicative of less deoxyhemoglobin present. Lower panel: After MR imaging, the
tumor was resected from the rat thigh and cut in half. Both halves were quickly
placed in liquid nitrogen or 10% formalin. The tumor tissue that was fixed in 10%
formalin was embedded in paraffin and sectioned for hematoxylin and eosin (H and E)
staining. It showed no significant signs of central necrosis, but minimal widespread
necroses surrounded by viable tissue.
Postprocessing of MR images was performed offline using in-house algorithms developed
in MatLab® (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). Table I summarizes the values assessed for each rat.
TABLE I.
Characteristics of individual Dunning prostate R3327-AT1 tumors. Inhaled gas during
irradiation is shown together with volume at the time of the first irradiation
(V0). The four oxygen-related parameters are presented
for each tumor, namely, the variation of signal intensity (BOLD and TOLD) and the
change in the relaxation longitudinal and transverse relaxation rates
(ΔR1 and , respectively) caused by oxygen administration during
the IBT acquisition.
Rat
Group
V0
(cm3)
ΔSI(%)BOLD
ΔSI(%)TOLD
ΔR2* (ms−1)
ΔR1
(s−1)
1
Air
1.0
−2.10
−0.40
0.0051
0.0539
2
Oxy
1.5
−0.93
0.32
−0.0010
0.046
3
Air
0.9
3.62
2.13
0.0003
0.0475
4
Oxy
1.1
−3.26
1.07
0.0021
0.1213
5
Air
0.9
−0.60
−0.19
−0.0035
0.0928
6
Oxy
0.7
1.43
0.76
0.0017
0.0393
7
Oxy
0.9
4.52
1.97
−0.0010
0.0677
8
Oxy
1.2
3.55
0.77
−0.0015
0.052
9
Air
1.2
4.09
2.51
−0.0008
0.0374
10
Oxy
1.1
7.94
1.40
−0.0033
0.0308
11
Air
1.2
2.43
0.79
0.0091
0.0149
12
Air
1.4
4.01
1.05
−0.0003
0.0099
13
Air
2.1
−0.44
0.59
−0.0004
−0.0064
14
Oxy
1.6
1.64
1.25
−0.0008
0.031
15
Air
0.9
3.76
2.11
0.0006
0.0365
16
Oxy
1.7
2.60
1.03
0.0054
0.0011
17
Oxy
1.7
4.77
1.51
−0.0012
0.0069
18
Air
1.2
3.29
0.72
−0.0006
0.0472
The next day rats were anesthetized while breathing either air or oxygen and, after
an equilibration period of at least 15 min, irradiated. Radiation was delivered
using a small animal x-ray irradiator (XRAD 225Cx, Precision X-Ray, North Branford,
CT) operating at 225 kV and 13 mA, producing a dose rate of 3.5
Gy/min.Each rat underwent two radiotherapy sessions with two doses of 15 Gy a week
apart (30 Gy total). The treatment was planned to be subcurative since the dose (single fraction) at
which there is 50% of tumor
control
probability (TCD50) is reported to be about 76 Gy, for the anaplastic AT1tumor.
Average curves of volume evolution are shown for both groups in Fig. 2.
FIG. 2.
Average evolution curves for the measured tumor volume are shown for air (solid line)
and oxy (dotted line) groups separately. Error bars are shown representing
±σ, the standard deviation across the sample for the specific
time point. Although some rats survived up to 56 days, the plot was stopped at day
42, the last measurement available for all tumors.
Mathematical model of tumor evolution
We considered the tumor as consisting of two main regions: (1) a viable (active)
volume of clonogens spontaneously growing and affected by radiation therapy and (2)
a necrotic volume, not able to proliferate due to either treatment damage or
severe hypoxia, which is physiologically washed out. In contrast to previous
work, we did not include an
explicit model of tumor reoxygenation along the treatment course or its
influence on the radio-sensitivity in the present study.The modeling of tumor proliferation has been often addressed in the
literature.
Among the most common mathematical formulations for the spontaneous tumor growth, the
Gompertzian, Logistic, and exponential equations need to be mentioned. The Gompertzian and Logistic
curves feature an initial exponential-like growth that saturates toward an asymptotic
value, similar to what is often reported by in vitro and in
vivo studies. In order to achieve this dual behavior, they require the
setting of two parameters, namely, the growth rate and the maximum carrying capacity
of the tissue. Conversely, despite the potentially unrealistic indefinite growth, the
exponential curve can be fully defined by its time constant only. Given the small
initial size of the tumors here, and the short observation time window (less than 2
months), a simple exponential function was used. We also assumed, according to the
small initial tumor volume, that no necrosis occurs before treatment, as supported
by tumor
histology (cf., Fig. 1).At the first irradiation time , we define and , where V and
V accounts for the active (viable) and necrotic
volumes, respectively, while V is the overall measured volume.
Afterwards, the time evolution of V is regulated by the
doubling time T. T refers
only to the active volume spontaneous growth and cannot be considered an index of
treatment
success (growth delay). It reflects the cell-line-specific growth rate and, possibly,
environmental factors influencing the cell-cycle and tumor aggressiveness. The
radiation
therapy effects are usually modeled by means of the linear-quadratic (LQ)
model, instead. It defines the surviving fraction
as where d is the
delivered dose and the tumor radio-sensitivity is represented by the
α (Gy−1) and β (Gy−2)
parameters accounting for double (lethal) and single (possibly reparable) strand
break damage to DNA, respectively. In order to assess both parameters
(α and β), a study including multiple
fractionation strategies would be required (different doses). In order to
overcome this issue, we assumed the ratio α/β = 6.8
Gy according to previous findings on R3327-AT1ratprostate tumors. Finally, as the damaged cells are
not instantaneously washed out, their dynamics can be described by an exponential
decay with an half-time constant T1/2. In the time
between the two irradiation sessions , the system can be summarized as
while for t >
tir2, it can be defined as
We assumed α to be
constant throughout time due to the limited amount of data at our disposal and
especially the lack of volume measurements between the two irradiations. This
assumption, along with the specific fractions applied (same dose delivered at both
fractions), allowed us to use the same surviving fraction definition for all the
equations above [Eqs. (1)–(3b)]. Similarly to our previous
work, the free
parameters (T, α, and
T1/2) were optimized on an animal-specific basis by
means of a custom genetic algorithm in order to achieve the best total volume fitting
(∀t, ). In the parameter learning,
T, T1/2, and
α were bounded in the range 3–7 days, 1–60 days, and 0.005–0.5
Gy−1, respectively, according to the prior literature. The large range for
T1/2 was also justified to cope with several dynamics
possibly causing a delay in tumor shrinkage (e.g., edema) not explicitly modeled. The fitting
error for the rth rat , minimized during the optimization, was computed
using the following relation: where i identifies
each of the N time steps at which measured volumes are
available. Statistical analysis was performed across the model parameters
and the error distributions of the air and oxy groups using the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney
test (5% significance). The Pearson correlation coefficient (P)
between the radio-sensitivity parameter (α) and the oxygen indices
(ΔSIBOLD, ΔSITOLD, ΔR1, and
) was computed separately for the oxy and the air
groups.
Neural
network
model
The possibility of an early prediction of tumor radio-sensitivity was investigated using the
initial tumor
volume and the four indices of oxygen level, namely, the BOLD and TOLD signal
intensity variation and the change in longitudinal (R1)
and transverse () relaxation rates. A feedforward artificial neural network
(ANN), featuring five input parameters (, ΔSITOLD, ΔR1,
and ), one hidden layer (five neurons), and one output
(predicted α), was implemented using the built-in Neural Network Toolbox of
MatLab® package. For each of the two groups (air and oxy), supervised training was
used to estimate the tumorradiation
sensitivity using the values provided by the genetic algorithm as targets. A complete
scheme of the adopted protocol outlining the two main steps (model fitting and
ANN training) is provided in Fig. 3. The
prediction ability of the two ANNs was assessed by performing a leave-one-out (LOO)
procedure. Out of the nine animals in each group, eight rats were selected for
training and one was left out to compute the extrapolation error. This was repeated
for all the rats in each group. The prediction error was computed by averaging out
all the extrapolation errors.
FIG. 3.
General scheme showing the two main stages of the data processing. First, the
mathematical model is trained using all the measured volume obtaining a set of
parameters (T, α,
T1/2) and the prediction of both viable and necrotic
volume evolution for each rat. Second, the radio-sensitivity estimated by the model
is used to train a feedforward neural network to predict it according to five inputs,
namely, V(0), ΔSIBOLD, ΔSITOLD,
ΔR1, and . Solid, filled arrows represent inputs, while solid,
unfilled and dashed arrows are the outputs and control variables (e.g., target),
respectively. Finally, the dotted arrow represents a possible feedback performed
employing the αNN predicted by the net to set the
corresponding parameter of the mathematical model and obtain an estimation of the
tumor response of a new rat.
RESULTS
Performance of the tumor evolution model
The proposed model achieved an average fitting error of about 0.7
cm3 (range: 0.2–1.3 cm3, 5%–42%) across the eighteen rats.
Despite the fact that the error was on average larger for the oxy group (0.8
cm3) than that of the air group (0.6 cm3), the difference
between the two error distributions was not statistically significant
(p = 0.5) and the model was able to mimic the general volume
progression trend in both cases (Fig. 4).
FIG. 4.
Two examples of fitting curves are reported for a rat belonging to the air group
(left panel) and one belonging to the oxy one (right panel). Solid circles and open
squares represent the measured and the predicted volumes. Grey triangles (dotted
line) stand for the predicted necrotic volume.
On average, the radio-sensitivity α was 0.05 and 0.04
Gy−1 for the oxy and air groups, respectively (p =
0.27). The assessed tumor doubling time (5.4 and 5.5 days on average for the air and
oxy group, respectively) was in accordance with the reported literature. Finally, the
T1/2 values showed a large variability (11–60 days)
and frequent saturation toward the upper bound (Table II). Again, both T and
T1/2 distributions were not statistically different
across the oxy and air groups.
TABLE II.
Model parameters and fitting errors obtained by means of a subject-specific
optimization.
Rat
Group
Td
(days)
α
(Gy−1)
T1/2
(days)
e
(mm3)
e (%)
1
Air
7.0
0.0189
60
445.67
12.56
2
Oxy
5.4
0.0468
60
692.35
19.11
3
Air
4.0
0.0468
38
1003.48
41.92
4
Oxy
6.8
0.0189
16
382.63
9.23
5
Air
4.8
0.0282
11
191.74
5.11
6
Oxy
6.9
0.0306
60
813.17
23.62
7
Oxy
4.0
0.0584
12
980.49
37.69
8
Oxy
3.5
0.0723
59
1296.24
31.89
9
Air
5.8
0.0305
60
606.78
17.95
10
Oxy
4.1
0.0561
24
1039.49
25.83
11
Air
5.3
0.0375
44
785.70
26.41
12
Air
4.1
0.0584
58
889.99
25.15
13
Air
6.3
0.0398
60
663.06
15.57
14
Oxy
7.0
0.0329
60
542.66
17.28
15
Air
4.1
0.0422
60
394.28
15.70
16
Oxy
7.0
0.0352
60
453.31
15.36
17
Oxy
5.0
0.0538
53
327.90
13.08
18
Air
6.8
0.0189
60
455.51
11.55
Radio-sensitivity and oxygenation
A correlation was observed for the radio-sensitivity of the oxygen-breathing rats
with respect of ΔSIBOLD (P = 0.69) and
(P = − 0.65). Both indices are
related to the apparent transverse relaxation rate, but given that
is a quantitative measurement, we focused on
investigating the role of . The two groups were further divided according to
their variation of transverse relaxation rate as Air
(air, ), Air (air,
), Oxy (oxy,
) and Oxy (oxy,
). While the Air
(n = 4) and Air (n
= 5) subgroups distributions were similar and also comparable to
Oxy (n = 3), the
Oxy set (n = 6) featured the
largest median value (Fig. 5) and was
statistically different from Oxy (p
< 0.05).
FIG. 5.
Boxplot of the α (alpha) distribution according to the four
subgroups identifying numbers of tumors (n) in each group
(Air: air, , n = 4;
Air: air, , n = 5;
Oxy: oxy, , n = 3; and
Oxy: oxy, , n = 6). The central mark is the
median, the edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend
to the most extreme data points.
As expected, fitting accuracy of the ANN (training dataset), in both the oxy and the
air groups, was very high (about 100%). The corresponding extrapolation errors,
provided by the LOO analysis, were lower than 13% and 19% for oxy and air groups,
respectively (Fig. 6).
FIG. 6.
Example of LOO analysis results of the neural network prediction ability for a single
item of both air (left panel) and oxy (right panel) groups. Circle and cross markers
represent the training data and the test item, respectively.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Major findings
The major findings of this work can be summarized as follows: (1) there was a
correlation between ΔSIBOLD and α (P =
0.69), as well as between and α (P = − 0.65),
in the oxy group; (2) the sign of distinguished two different distributions of the
α parameter in the oxy group; (3) the ANN, trained to predict the
tumor
radio-sensitivity given the initial tumor volume and the MRI indices, yielded an
extrapolation error lower than 20% in both groups.Provided that oxygenation is one of the main microenvironmental factors influencing
radio-sensitivity, a correlation
between MRI
indices of oxygenation and α is expected. The results agree with
previous findings in the literature showing a positive correlation between the
variation in the BOLD signal response and partial O2 pressure
(pO2) and the inverse relation between
relaxation rate and the oxygenation level of the
tumor.We investigated possible nonlinear (threshold-like) relations, by means of a further
subdivision of the overall dataset into four subgroups according to the
sign. The Air
() and Air
() subgroups presented a similar distribution of the
radio-sensitivity, suggesting that the tumors have comparable microenvironmental conditions.
The behavior of the Oxy subgroup, showing
radio-sensitivity values in the same range as the Air
and Air groups, could be ascribed to a vascularization
deficit (immature or defective) which is a quite common consequence of tumor-related
fast angiogenesis. For example, in
case of vascular inefficiency, breathing hyperoxic gas may not increase the oxygen
level in the region of interest. Conversely, the radio-sensitivity distribution of
the Oxy subgroup was significantly different
(p < 0.05) from the one of Oxy
suggesting that a well-vascularized tumor may benefit from oxygen inhalation. It was
previously shown that breathing oxygen during a single high dose irradiation could
significantly affect the growth of some small Dunning R3327-AT1 prostate
tumors. An
initial study measured absolute pO2 directly using
19F MRI of the reporter molecule hexafluorobenzene, but this was
invasive requiring injection into the tumor. A later study showed that tumors could be
discriminated based on longitudinal relaxation rate response to an oxygen challenge
prior to any radiation (ΔSITOLD and
ΔR1). Both those studies examined single high dose
radiation of
30 Gy, as opposed to the split dose applied here.The introduction of artificial neural networks to predict the radio-sensitivity at
staging time is novel with respect to standard macroscopic model
approach. The ANN
approach provided prediction accuracy greater than 80% for the radio-sensitivity,
showing that it is likely to predict α on an individual basis,
according to pretreatment data. Despite the fact that the generalization ability of
the ANN needs further investigation and would benefit from the inclusion of larger
datasets, such a result holds promise.
Model and data issues
Potential shortcomings of the current study can be summarized in (1) small data
cohort, (2) measurement precision, (3) lack of quantitative relation between
MRI
indices and oxygenation, (4) model setting including active and necrotictumor
dynamics, only. The inclusion of only eighteen tumors and the further
classification of the animals in two or even four different groups limited the
generalization of the work findings. However, we note that the use of a simplified
model, featuring three free parameters only, makes it suitable to
cope with small data cohorts. Future prospective studies will involve a larger
tumor
dataset.The MRI
images were acquired only twice during the treatment, namely, the day before each irradiation,
but were not used to compute the tumor size. The assessment of the tumor volume was carried
out by means of digital caliper measurements, which may have introduced uncertainties
we did not quantitatively evaluate. A mismatch between the actual volume and the
measured value can be due to inter and intraoperator variability in the diameters
measurements, as well as to a nonspheroidal shape of the tumor. However, a
standardized protocol allowed
minimizing measurement uncertainty. We plan to address this issue in future studies
by an image-based (e.g., MRI) approach to tumor volume assessment. Although the relation
between MRI-based indices and oxygenation still remains subject of intense debate,
several studies support the positive correlation among oxygenation,
ΔSIBOLD, ΔSITOLD, and ΔR1 while
appears inversely correlated. In the present study, we were not
interested in assessing the absolute tumor oxygenation value per se, but we were rather
interested in investigating the relation between oxygen-related indices and the
tumor
responsiveness to the treatment. It was shown, by means of the neural network approach,
that the aforementioned indices can be used, along with the initial volume size, to
predict the tumor radio-sensitivity. It has to be remarked that the reference
(target) of the neural
network is the radio-sensitivity value predicted by the
model, which is clearly affected by the limitations in the
optimization procedure. Above all, the lack of an independent validation of the two
dynamics (active/necrotic) may lead to an incorrect parameter setting. This
limitation will be tackled in a future prospective study including multimodal imaging
techniques able to provide metabolic information of the tumor (e.g.,
PET-based). Finally, some
considerations about the simplification of the tumor evolution to two
simple macroscopic dynamics (viable and necrotic regions) are in order. First,
despite the rough simplification, we were allowed to mimic the tumor growth using an
exponential relation due to the early stage of the tumors under
investigation, since the leading factor in this case is the uncontrolled cell
duplication as stated in the literature. Moreover, the tumor was implanted
subcutaneously; therefore, it was not limited in its growth by surrounding
structures. Second, there is a debate about whether the LQ formulation is suitable
for high dose
irradiation. Recent
studies suggest that despite being less accurate, the prediction obtained using the
LQ is comparable to the one provided by universal survival curves models in case of
tumor
presenting heterogeneous oxygenation, which applies to most of solid tumors. This conclusion is further
supported in Ref. 41 where the authors argue
that the LQ model encompassed a better fit irrespective of treatment
doses than
did any of the models requiring extra terms at high doses. However, the large
error variability (range: 0.2–1.3 cm3), as well as the large values of the
clearance time constant, suggests that some of the mechanisms that have been
discarded were not negligible. For example, irradiation may have triggered a local
inflammation, or even vascular damage leading to edema and tumor swelling. AT1tumors were indeed found
to swell substantially following a single dose of 30 Gy, prior to regression. Neglecting these dynamics should not
impair the overall model parameter estimation, since they usually represent
transient states occurring in a short temporal window following the irradiation. This
hypothesis is supported by be fact that the error obtained comparing the last
measured volume of each rat to the corresponding model
approximation was on average less than 5% across the whole dataset. We did not aspire
to attain perfect volume fitting, so much as to identify different tumor responsiveness,
since large discrepancies in single values could also be due to data noise.
Therefore, the three-parameter formulation makes the model more robust
and able to mimic the general trend of the volume regression curve despite data
uncertainty.
Final remarks
In this paper, a macroscopic model of tumor growth and response
to radiation
therapy was proposed and trained on eighteen Copenhagen rats implanted subcutaneously
with Dunning R3327-AT1 prostate cancer and subdivided according to the gas breathed
during irradiation (air/oxy). The main goals were to (1) provide an estimation of the
individual radio-sensitivity, (2) correlate radio-sensitivity with scalar indices of
blood and tissue oxygenation, (3) investigate mathematical methods able to provide an
estimation of the tumor responsiveness a priori. Despite the
limitation of a small dataset, caliper-based measurements and model dynamics
reduction, the proposed formulation was able to fit the data within about 25% error
in 15 of 18 rats. The correlation analysis suggested a relation between the
radio-sensitivity and the changes in the relaxation rate for the oxy group. This hypothesis
was supported by further investigation leading to the finding that only rats
featuring benefit from oxygen inhalation. In the end, we showed
how the radio-sensitivity could be assessed a priori using a
neural
network by means of oxygen and volume-related information. Given
that accurate prognosis and radiotherapy personalization are crucial to provide
patients with the best possible care, mathematical models able to predict tumor response to
different doses and fractionation are gaining popularity. Although further
tests and validations are needed to improve their robustness and reliability, we
believe that mathematical models of tumor evolution will play
a major role in the cancer
treatment
customization in the near future.
A realistic scenario for the application of mathematical models to therapy
personalization is shown in Fig. 7. It
encompasses an initial parameter setting (model selection) according to the patient
staging using either the literature data or pretreatment information (volume and
oxygenation indices). Different radiotherapy modalities (e.g., fractionation and
doses) are
simulated and the predicted outcome employed to select the one most suitable
schedule. A further model refinement can be performed along the treatment administration
period based on the differences between prediction and measured volume size along the
therapy delivery. This allows for treatment replanning in case of large
discrepancies.
FIG. 7.
General scheme of treatment planning and adjustment using mathematical models.
Authors: Michael Milosevic; Padraig Warde; Cynthia Ménard; Peter Chung; Ants Toi; Adrian Ishkanian; Michael McLean; Melania Pintilie; Jenna Sykes; Mary Gospodarowicz; Charles Catton; Richard P Hill; Robert Bristow Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-03-31 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Peter Peschke; Christian P Karger; Michael Scholz; Jürgen Debus; Peter E Huber Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Heling Zhou; Rami R Hallac; Qing Yuan; Yao Ding; Zhongwei Zhang; Xian-Jin Xie; Franto Francis; Claus G Roehrborn; R Douglas Sims; Daniel N Costa; Ganesh V Raj; Ralph P Mason Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2017-08-24